Bibliographic record
Abstract
You can take the boy out of the manse, but not the manse out of the boy.My father was a Presbyterian minister steeped in the writings of John Calvin and John Knox, several late nineteenth-century liberal German theologians, and the more contemporary neo-orthodox Swiss theologian, Karl Barth.In our family, a premium was placed on articulate speech, serious discussion, systematic thought, and religious belief.While an adolescent, I rebelled against all of those qualities at one time or another.Only now can I see that they had a profound, life-long influence on me.At thirteen, I wanted to join my Sunday school compatriots who were trotting off to confirmation classes.Wisely, my father counseled me against taking this step because, he said, I was too young to fully understand what was involved.A year later, he asked me if I thought I was ready to join the church, but by that time serious doubts had arisen. 1 Over the next several years, I read Schleiermacher, Bultmann, Bonhoeffer, Tillich, and J.A.T. Robinson and, while we talked about their ideas, my father never again asked about my beliefs.What remained from these discussions, however, was a serious concern about how one should live ones life.In our home, dinner was served at precisely 6:00 p.m.For the first fifteen minutes, we listened to the CBC radio news after which vigorous conversation frequently ensued.My father held very firm views on many issues, but he did not dismiss contrary opinions a priori.As we lived in Montreal during the Duplessis era in the 1950s, political life was lively-rife with conflict and corruption.My father had lent modest support in the Roncarelli 2 and Padlock Law 3 cases, and when the Supreme Court ruled
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".